How is this Tamron lens?

[funpix]

Tamron Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Ultra Zoom XR LD Aspherical IF Macro Autofocus Lens for Canon EOS

[gasrocks]

Did you read the review at FredMiranda.com? Not too hot.

[J Rabin]

The soundest review of this lens is on William Castleman's site from Univ. of Florida. All "1-travel-lens-does-it-all" are mediocre compromises. But, there are times to use them (family camping, bicycling, canoeing trips, etc.) where photography IS NOT A REASON you're there. As these compromised lenses go, the Tamron ain't bad. I doubt I'd own it, I'd probably just bring a point & shoot camera, but as a compromised 35mm lens it ain't bad for printing 4x6 snapshots or computer slide shows.
Funpix, let me give you one warning. Do you own any good glass? If you own ANY really good lenses, or any Canon "L" glass, and then take pictures with this you'll hurl it and be pissed you spent $XXX. Some people save and buy the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 and Canon 70-200 f/4 L as an excellent entry travel combo because they share 67mm filter sizes (only one good polarizer needed), they are light (relatively) and take uncompromisingly outstanding pictures. You'll never "outgrow" those lenses as a family hobbyist. Hope that helps. Jack

[Dante King]

I must come to the defense of this lens. While this lens is a compromise on many levels, it is important to remember that it is not PRO glass. What it is, IMHO, is a nice lens that has an incredible amount of coverage, it is SUPER light, and priced pretty darn well. It comes with a hood and a 6 year warranty.

This lens is not fast. It can be soft at the extreemes, but I have made many 8x10 blow ups form this lens that are BEAUTIFUL. It has sereved as my lazy lens. For when I want to take 1 lens and just the body. The weight of this lens is amazing. hardly know its there. I find the color rendition to be good and AF to be good in good light. Could it be better with a 900$$ lens? Maybe. I think ANY lens that has this coverage has these compromises. I was checking out the canon 28-300 for $2000. Is it any better? Its really hard to decide. Maybe better optics and beats the tamron in some areas, but is it worth it for $1500 more? I thought not.

Lenses are expensive. They can be an investment or burden depending on your financial situation. Getting the best glass is always great. For me, this lens was the right choice at the time I got my 300D. I am looking at replacing this lens with the 70-300 DO is usm. It is more expensive by double the cost but I think it is what I am going to do.

If you have limited funds I would not be afraid if this lens knowing its not the best out there. It sure has served a purpose for me and I have enjoyed it greatly.

[Andy_T]

Check out this article (http://www.e-fotografija.com/artman/publish/article_306.shtml), it gives an example by comparing shots of the Tamron 28-300, the Canon 70-200/2.8L and the Canon 70-300 DO.

Best regards,
Andy

[Skip Souza]

I own one and I am not about to throw it away.
Like most do-it-all lenses id does not do any one thing really well. It is soft especially over 200mm and not particularly fast. It is also short at the long end. I'd say it is probably about 275-280mm instead of the advertised 300mm. It does focus faster than the venerable Canon 70-300mm IS.
The Tamron allows you to take acceptable pictures as long as you are not too critical. After all, you are not paying L lens prices.

[Andy_T]

I It does focus faster than the venerable Canon 70-300mm IS.

Do you really mean the 70-300 (the 1200$ DO lens) or rather the 75-300 IS?

Best regards,
Andy

[Skip Souza]

Oops!
My Tamron focuses faster than my wife's 75-300 IS.
Sorry about the confusion.

[mr.photoguy]

I think this would be a lens that will fit certain people styles, and not fit others. it depends on the person shooting.
For me: it wouldn't fit, only because I have no issues with carrying three lenses, or being forced to carry one, which would be my mid range.

However, I have seen some decent images from the lens. So the pictures aren't all that bad. I guess I would rather see it as a 28-200 instead because it's soft at 300..

Good luck.